Android Wear hardware review: Sometimes promising, often frustrating

The Samsung Gear Live and LG G Watch aren't as essential as they want to be.

We've reviewed most of the major entrants into the smartwatch arena at this point—the Galaxy Gear, the Gear 2 and Gear Fit, and the Qualcomm Toq—but aside from demos at shows, I've stayed away from all of them. I've even skipped the Pebble Steel, which is generally well-regarded compared to the rest of that list.

Further Reading

Because, let's face it: it's pretty clear that none of those wearables are destined for large-scale, mass-market success. They're the MP3 players before the iPod. They're the smartphones before the iPhone. They're niche gadgets for early adopters who are intrigued by their dim glimmer of conceptual promise and can ignore or work around their obvious shortcomings.

Android Wear was the first smartwatch operating system that made me really want to try living with one. Yes, it's another take on the phone-notifications-on-your-wrist thing that smartwatches can't seem to move away from, but as we explore in our software review, it's a version of that idea that will actually work with many existing Android phones and apps. The OS is certainly in a better starting position than it was for any of the others listed above.

As we mentioned in the software review, both Samsung's Gear Fit and LG's G Watch are a warm-up act of sorts for the Moto 360, a more stylish round-faced watch that Google and Motorola will be sending out to Google I/O attendees (and, presumably, regular customers) later this summer. That's the watch people want—the audience at the I/O keynote groaned audibly when it heard it would be getting LG and Samsung watches and not Motorola ones. Still, these new watches give us a chance to evaluate Android Wear ahead of the Moto 360, looking at potential pain points and paving the way for the Android Wear watch developers and enthusiasts actually want.

Further Reading

It still requires a phone, but there's no better way to deal with notifications.

We walked away from Google I/O with both the Gear Live and G Watch in tow, and we've given the hardware the full review treatment below. We'll talk about the phone and tablet hardware you'll need to get started, the hardware and software differences between the (admittedly similar) watches, the chips inside each one, how long both will last on a single charge, and the areas where smartwatches in general, and Android Wear in particular, could use more work.

System requirements

However "smart" these watches might be, they're made to be used with Android phones and tablets. You can't even set one up without having an Android phone or tablet, and that device must run Android version 4.3 or better. If you're not sure what version you've got, looking at this page on your phone will let you know.

We've paired both the G Watch and the Gear Live to a few different devices to double-check those requirements. For example, does the software just want Android 4.3, or is it also looking for Bluetooth 4.0, a feature which Android 4.3 enabled on some (but not all) phones and tablets that got the update? As it turns out, we were able to pair the watches to several devices that had Android 4.3 or 4.4 but not Bluetooth 4.0—the 2012 Nexus 7, the Nexus 10, and the Galaxy Nexus, specifically. Our battery life tests even showed that a G Watch connected to a Galaxy Nexus without Bluetooth 4.0 lasted for as long as it did connected to a Nexus 5 with Bluetooth 4.0, though our rough test doesn't measure differences in battery drain on the phone's end.

For most of our time with both watches, we stuck with Bluetooth 4.0 devices—we paired them with the Nexus 5, Nexus 4, 2013 Nexus 7, the Samsung Galaxy S4, and the Moto G with no trouble at all. As long as it's on 4.3 or better, you can get the same Android Wear experience from a $600 flagship or a phone that costs less than the watch.

Smartwatch showdown: G Watch vs. Gear Fit

Comparing the Gear Live to the G Watch is all about noticing the small things. They don't look very different in pictures, but there are plenty of little things that will influence your purchasing decision if you decide to pull the trigger on one.

The Gear Live.

Samsung

The G Watch.

LG

Specs at a glance: Samsung Gear Live

Screen

1.63" 320×320 AMOLED display (278 PPI)

OS

Android 4.4W

CPU

1.2GHz Snapdragon 400

RAM

512MB

GPU

Qualcomm Adreno 305

Storage

4GB

Networking

Bluetooth 4.0

Case Size

37.9 x 56.4 x 8.9mm

Weight

59g

Battery

300 mAh

Starting price

$199

Other perks

Heart rate sensor, exclusive watch faces, replaceable 22mm band

Specs at a glance: LG G Watch

Screen

1.65" 280×280 IPS LCD display (240 PPI)

OS

Android 4.4W

CPU

1.2GHz Snapdragon 400

RAM

512MB

GPU

Qualcomm Adreno 305

Storage

4GB

Networking

Bluetooth 4.0

Case Size

37.9 x 46.5 x 9.95mm

Weight

63g

Battery

400 mAh

Starting price

$229

Other perks

Exclusive watch faces, replaceable 22mm band

The LG G Watch is mostly plastic with glass laid over its screen and bezels—the face is always black, but the back of the watch can be either all black with a black strap or gold with a white strap. The watch is thick—necessary to carry a battery and all the components—but not ridiculously so. The Gear Live's body is a little thinner throughout than the body of the G Watch, and the metal surrounding the screen and covering the sides is more pleasing aesthetically than the G Watch's completely flat, plastic-and-glass face, back, and sides.

The completely flat back is our least favorite thing about the G Watch—you're always feeling it lying flat against your wrist as you wear it. Samsung's watch has a gently curved back and fits the wrist both more comfortably and more snugly—this is the third iteration of Samsung's standard watch hardware in less than a year, after all, so the company has had some time to refine the design.

Enlarge/ The back of the Gear Live, with its pogo pins and wonky heart rate sensor. On the left you can see the power/home/sleep button, something that the G watch doesn't include.

Andrew Cunningham

Enlarge/ The G Watch just has pogo pins. Its completely flat back is less comfortable against one's wrist.

Andrew Cunningham

The G watch has a 1.65-inch IPS LCD display with a 280×280 resolution, giving it a respectable 240 PPI density. Compare it to the Gear Live, and you'll notice that it seems a little fuzzy, its colors a little muted. Samsung's watch uses a 320×320 Super AMOLED display (278 PPI) just like the Galaxy Gear and Gear 2 before it, and its screen technology is usually a better fit for the software.

AMOLED isn't perfect, but Android Wear is clearly optimized for it rather than standard LCD displays. The watch's "idle" mode, where it displays the time and your notifications in white text on a black background, is made with AMOLED in mind. Only the pixels that are lit up are consuming power; the black pixels are entirely turned off. In an LCD display, your whole screen is lit and consuming power no matter what color the pixels are.

Enlarge/ LG marketed an "always on screen" as a major G Watch feature, but that's a little disingenuous—the "always on" screen option is a standard part of the Android Wear platform.

Andrew Cunningham

AMOLED displays are additionally known for their bright, vibrant colors. These can be vivid to the point of distraction on a phone, but they're actually a nice fit for a smartwatch—color accuracy isn't all that important on a screen this small in a device intended mostly to receive notifications. The saturated reds and blues of AMOLED make the Gear Live's screen pop more than the G Watch's, and its density mostly covers up AMOLED's strange subpixel layout.

The one area where AMOLED still trails LCD is in direct sunlight—both the Gear Live and G Watch are completely blown out if you use their default brightness settings in the sun, but cranked to maximum brightness, the G Watch has a slight edge. Neither watch, sadly, has an auto-brightness sensor, which is actually kind of a big deal for something you'll be looking at outside. Adjusting brightness requires a trip to the Settings menu, and it's a distracting multi-step process that you'll repeat often if you're in and out of your home a lot.

If you read our software review first, you'll already know there are two ways of interacting with an Android Wear watch: you can raise it to your face, at which point it is supposed to go from "idle" to "active" mode and receive "OK Google" voice input. If that doesn't work, you can poke the screen to wake it and then say "OK Google" anyway.

We spent multiple days with each watch, and the Gear Live was much better at springing to life when I lifted my arm from my side to my face, or even when I twisted my wrist toward my eyes. The G Watch almost never did—I usually had to poke its screen to wake it up first. We'll talk more about this later, but smartwatches traffic in convenience. Manufacturers must get this kind of thing right.

Finally, the Gear Live includes a hardware feature not present on the G Watch: a heart rate sensor, located on the back of the watch below the pogo pins for charging. Like the heart rate sensors in the Galaxy S5 and the Gear Fit, it's hard to rely on. Even assuming that its reading is accurate, the sensor has a hard time working when it's wet, which is problematic because "exercise" tends to produce this moisture called "sweat." I could usually get the heart rate sensor to spit out a reading if I was sitting or walking, but I could never get it to work while I was in the middle of a jog.

Straps: Imperfect, replaceable

Both watches have very different straps; Samsung's is stiff and plasticky, and you close it by putting two pegs at the end of the strap into the holes. LG's is a rubbery, flexible thing that uses a more conventional clasp. Neither is very good.

With LG's watch, it's about aesthetics—the big rubbery band makes this expensive watch look flimsy and toy-like. Samsung's looks and feels a little better, but it's a pain to close it around your wrist with one hand. The best that can be said of it is that you eventually get kind of used to holding the watch down against your leg and swearing until you find a good fit.

Enlarge/ Samsung's strap is so stiff you have to take it off to get a good picture of it. Those silver pegs hold the two halves of the band together.

Andrew Cunningham

Luckily, both OEMs seem to have learned a lesson from the Qualcomm Toq and from the first Galaxy Gear: don't cram important, non-removable components like the battery or a camera into an ugly or clunky watch band. Both the G Watch and Gear Live will work with any 22mm watch band, and I found a reasonably well-reviewed black leather band that I like way more on Amazon for about $15. This should really be a requirement for smartwatches—if you can't ship a decent band with the thing, at least let people fix the problem themselves.

Enlarge/ The Gear Live (right) looks much more dignified with a standard $15 leather strap. Do your watch a favor and get one.

Andrew Cunningham

Software differences

Further Reading

For Android's second act, customizability takes a back seat to consistency.

As we reported over the weekend, OEMs can't do anything to skin Android Wear, TV, or Auto, or alter the basic user experience. The OS from our software review will be the one running on any Wear watch you buy, and both the G Watch and the Gear Live are running the same version of Android (4.4W) right down to the build number (KMV78N). Updates should come directly from Google, keeping the watches' software in lockstep and preventing fragmentation.

That said, OEMs are not totally prevented from differentiating their watches. Both the G Watch and the Gear Live came with a handful of common watch faces plus an array of unique faces stored in packages like "SamsungWatchFaces.apk" that can't be taken and run on other watches (the APKs will install, but they'll just generate error messages if you try to use them). Each watch also includes a small handful of preinstalled apps specific to the watch—normally, Wear apps can only be added to watches if they're installed as part of a standard Android phone or tablet app.

So, removing the ability of OEMs to alter the fundamental user experience doesn't mean they can't still try to differentiate their devices from one another. It just works more like it does on Windows—OEMs have to add on top without altering what's underneath.

Andrew Cunningham / Andrew has a B.A. in Classics from Kenyon College and has over five years of experience in IT. His work has appeared on Charge Shot!!! and AnandTech, and he records a weekly book podcast called Overdue.